MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989211329 · doi:10.4141/cjas08101

Growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality of heavy lambs reared in a warm or cold environment during winter

2009· article· en· W1989211329 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Éric Pouliot, C. Gariépy, M. Thériault, C. Avezard, J. Fortin, F. W. Castonguay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversité Laval
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBiologyAnimal scienceOrganolepticLongissimus dorsiLongissimus muscleCarcass weightCold stressBody weightFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of winter rearing environment on the growth performance and meat quality of heavy lambs. Half of sixty-four Dorset lambs (32 males and 32 females) were raised in each of two different environments: warm and cold with average temperature of 10.9 ± 0.7 °C and -2.0 ± 5.2 °C, respectively. The lambs were slaughtered at live weights of 41-45 kg for females and 46-50 kg for males. Cold environment had no adverse effect on either growth performance or carcass quality. The rate of longissimus dorsi muscle deposition (P = 0.049) and its depth at slaughter (P = 0.027) were rather greater in lambs reared in the cold environment and a higher proportion of oxido-glycolytic fibres (P = 0.047) was also observed in this muscle. Rearing environment had only a minor effect on the organoleptic qualities, with the cold environment promoting juiciness of the meat (P = 0.043). Therefore, cold environment rearing such as used in this study represents an economic advantage for lamb producers by reducing the costs associated with the construction of insulated barns, while maintaining growth performance, as well as carcass and meat quality. Key words: Lamb, rearing environment, temperature, growth, carcass, meat quality

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207